gadian:Eh, I can't summon the outrage. If abortion is a tool of family planning (and that is how it is used) then one can plan their family however they see fit. Also, like the article said, most abortions are too early to discern gender anyway. But,but,but the lost girls! Yeah, those girls don't know the difference. There are greater injustices to women out there, like anti-choice, pro-birth at all costs nutjobs.

Why the hate?

I've thought about the whole abortion issue for decades, and - as I developed various ethical, social and technological arguments - have gone from one side to the other several times. This mirrors, in effect, the difficulties in decision-making that I experienced back in the early 70's when I was honored to be selected as one of a group of people developing an abortion plank for the just-being-born Libertarian Party. We worked on the issue 12 hours a day for two weeks, and still could not arrive at consensus. We finally decided on "choice" but with ethical reservations, and the caveat that the issue would be solved (sidestepped) by technology.

Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

This should absolutely be banned, because if a couple is willing to undergo a painful medical procedure not to have a girl, then they definitely should be forced to have a girl. And then we'll send them all home together. I'm sure nothing bad will come of this.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.

Except for overpopulation, and starting a kid's life with insurmountable debt to due the expense of the procedure.

/"Welcome to the world, little 491765C. You're owned by MegaCorp, who paid for your gestation. Hope you like salt mines!"

Tanishh:And if you support laws making it such that killing a pregnant woman gives you 2 counts of murder instead of 1, congratulations. You, too, are not 100% on the "fetuses don't matter at all and choice is all that matters" side either.

False.

I'm of the opinion that when it comes to murder or similarly disturbing crimes where the goal is removing the perpetrator from society for as much time as possible, the more charges the better, period.

Theaetetus:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.

Except for overpopulation, and starting a kid's life with insurmountable debt to due the expense of the procedure.

/"Welcome to the world, little 491765C. You're owned by MegaCorp, who paid for your gestation. Hope you like salt mines!"

The overpopulation myth is a dead horse. Please stop whipping it. The entire population of the Earth could fit into Rhode Island, with room left over. Starvation, water and land issues are virtually all politics-related due to local sociopathic dictators using them as weapons against their own citizen-slaves.

As for cost: knowledge-based technological costs tend to always decrease. Remember when a personal computer with 640K ran cost five grand? Additionally, I think that "right to life" issues are actually a legitimate area of government "commons" action. IOW, a fetus's right to life should be guaranteed by the State. If the mother does not want the child then the government simply removes the fetus and creche-raises it to term. And there are plenty of people wanting to adopt. If not, then the State raises the child.

I know, that may sound bizarre coming from someone with a libertarian bent. But there are legitimate functions of government. And I've come to the conclusion that guaranteeing the right to life of a fetus is one of them.

Lorelle:One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.

Came into the thread to say this. If you can't back it up with statistics, it's bullshiat.

/College freshman English. Why do most people seem to have skipped it?

doglover:BarkingUnicorn: Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.

The Mormons actually have to kick young men out of the church to make sure they have enough brides to go around for the senior members. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.jp/2012/09/where-do-extra-men-go.htm l

That's what I think one of the big things in the Muslim countries with all the extreme terrorists is. They also allow polygamy. So the richest, most powerful old goats snap up all the women and the poor young men are left with no money, no power, and no pussy. When was the last time a George Clooney type playboy went all suicide bomber? If you guessed never, step up and collect your prize.

So a dearth of unwed young men will always lead to trouble. That's my hypothesis and thus objection.

In China, where the "one child" policy has lead to an overstock of males vs females, women are realizing they've got a LOT of power when it comes to who they choose to marry -- and they're looking to make bank. As part of the "bride price," they're demanding -- and getting -- new cars, apartments/houses for their parents, you name it. Keeping that daughter as the "one child" is turning out to be a very good investment for parents, so I'm guessing the market will correct itself.

steerforth:Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Lorelle: One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.

I think it's clear from the article that they're not wanting an outright restriction on abortion, they just want a restriction on the parents knowing the gender before it's too late to get an abortion so parents can't get an abortion just because they don't like the gender of the baby.

It's clear from the article that there isn't a problem.

Are you saying that parents wanting to get an abortion because they don't like the biological gender of the baby isn't a problem? Either way, please explain.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:Theaetetus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.

Except for overpopulation, and starting a kid's life with insurmountable debt to due the expense of the procedure.

/"Welcome to the world, little 491765C. You're owned by MegaCorp, who paid for your gestation. Hope you like salt mines!"

The overpopulation myth is a dead horse. Please stop whipping it. The entire population of the Earth could fit into Rhode Island, with room left over. Starvation, water and land issues are virtually all politics-related due to local sociopathic dictators using them as weapons against their own citizen-slaves.

That's not any different from what I said. Read the sarcastic slashy.

As for cost: knowledge-based technological costs tend to always decrease. Remember when a personal computer with 640K ran cost five grand? Additionally, I think that "right to life" issues are actually a legitimate area of government "commons" action. IOW, a fetus's right to life should be guaranteed by the State. If the mother does not want the child then the government simply removes the fetus and creche-raises it to term. And there are plenty of people wanting to adopt. If not, then the State raises the child.

I know, that may sound bizarre coming from someone with a libertarian bent. But there are legitimate functions of government. And I've come to the conclusion that guaranteeing the right to life of a fetus is one of them.

That's pretty much the opposite of libertarian. Even if you include the caveat of "... provided we do have the technology to instantly and painlessly remove the fetus from the womb" (which you didn't include), you're still stating that the government should be responsible for bearing and raising everyone, guaranteeing safety, food, shelter, etc. It's actually socialist, not libertarian.

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf:steerforth: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Lorelle: One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.

I think it's clear from the article that they're not wanting an outright restriction on abortion, they just want a restriction on the parents knowing the gender before it's too late to get an abortion so parents can't get an abortion just because they don't like the gender of the baby.

It's clear from the article that there isn't a problem.

Are you saying that parents wanting to get an abortion because they don't like the biological gender of the baby isn't a problem? Either way, please explain.

He's saying that this isn't a societalproblem, because it occurs in only one out of a billion cases. It's not something that needs to be addressed by new, overbroad legislation that would affect those 999 million other cases.

BarkingUnicorn:Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.

Horseshiat. The only valid reason to choose to have an abortion is inability to be a good parent, imho. Aborting based on gender tells me you're a shiatty person that views children as fashion accessories.

A parent's job is to help your child become the best adult he/she can be, not who you *want* them to be.

AdrienVeidt:BarkingUnicorn: Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.

Horseshiat. The only valid reason to choose to have an abortion is inability to be a good parent, imho. Aborting based on gender tells me you're a shiatty person that views children as fashion accessories.

A parent's job is to help your child become the best adult he/she can be, not who you *want* them to be.

Why require a reason to get an abortion if a fetus isn't a human being?

Theaetetus:Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: steerforth: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Lorelle: One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.

I think it's clear from the article that they're not wanting an outright restriction on abortion, they just want a restriction on the parents knowing the gender before it's too late to get an abortion so parents can't get an abortion just because they don't like the gender of the baby.

It's clear from the article that there isn't a problem.

Are you saying that parents wanting to get an abortion because they don't like the biological gender of the baby isn't a problem? Either way, please explain.

He's saying that this isn't a societalproblem, because it occurs in only one out of a billion cases. It's not something that needs to be addressed by new, overbroad legislation that would affect those 999 million other cases.

Excellent point, but how does not allowing parents to know the gender of their unborn children prior to 24 weeks have a negative affect on cases where parents would not abort the fetus because of the gender?

Theaetetus:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Theaetetus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.

Except for overpopulation, and starting a kid's life with insurmountable debt to due the expense of the procedure.

/"Welcome to the world, little 491765C. You're owned by MegaCorp, who paid for your gestation. Hope you like salt mines!"

The overpopulation myth is a dead horse. Please stop whipping it. The entire population of the Earth could fit into Rhode Island, with room left over. Starvation, water and land issues are virtually all politics-related due to local sociopathic dictators using them as weapons against their own citizen-slaves.

That's not any different from what I said. Read the sarcastic slashy.

As for cost: knowledge-based technological costs tend to always decrease. Remember when a personal computer with 640K ran cost five grand? Additionally, I think that "right to life" issues are actually a legitimate area of government "commons" action. IOW, a fetus's right to life should be guaranteed by the State. If the mother does not want the child then the government simply removes the fetus and creche-raises it to term. And there are plenty of people wanting to adopt. If not, then the State raises the child.

I know, that may sound bizarre coming from someone with a libertarian bent. But there are legitimate functions of government. And I've come to the conclusion that guaranteeing the right to life of a fetus is one of them.

That's pretty much the opposite of libertarian. Even if you include the caveat of "... provided we do have the technology to instantly and painlessly remove the fetus from the womb" (which you didn't include), you're still stating that the government should be responsible for bearing and raising everyone, guaranteeing safety, food, shelter, etc. It's actually socialist, not libertarian.

I didn't include "everyone" in that statement, just unwanted fetuses. Would the government be responsible for helping a child found wandering in the streets with no relatives? Same thing. I believe that a Last Chance safety net is a "commons" good.

Lorelle:One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.

cedarpark:DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?

An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.

ahh I was wondering how many post before this racist gem comes out LOL. I'm sure that the effect is almost always the opposite. Immigrants are more likely to be NOT like their counterparts in their native land otherwise they wouldn't be immigrants.

More so in the case of India and China where this subject is particularly sensitive. Most likely any Indian or Chinese who emigrated would value girls far above even those of their adopted country nevermind where they came from.From my own personal experience I can tell you girls born to immigrant Chinese or Indians parents are like the most precious snowflake of snowflakes. The exact reverse of the attitudes toward girls born in China or India.

bifford:This was probably an Asian culture. Sex-selective abortions are widespread across Asia. It's often illegal, but it's fairly easy to get one anyway. Asian countries have a huge surplus of men who cannot find brides because there are too few females. Everyone acknowledges the problem, but nobody sees why they should have to shoulder the burden of raising a daughter for the benefit of some other family's son. The daughter leaves the nest taking a huge dowry with her. A son can get a job and provide for his parents.

ElizaDoolittle:This. And would it be rude to mention that the girls are often born full-term and drowned? Good luck, Chinese/Indian parents of a son who has no chance of finding a wife because you thought that boys were the only necessary children. I hate this well-documented and tolerated murder of baby girls. I can only hope that it reaps the obvious results: in about ten years, Indian and Chinese women (the ones who survived) will be valued beyond belief.

Forgive my cynicism. They'll probably be raped and forced to bear a child every year by multiple men to correct the error.

this and thisSociety will do what it always does. Change.China is already seeing that (see above comment about bride price.At some point the parents of girls in India will wake up and realize that they got it all wrong.They will have big wars/auctions for the right to marry their daughters.FFS, that wont be any better for the girls, but it will shift the mindset to stop killing the female babies.

/meh - less women in india and china = less babies being born there = not a bad thing at all

SuperNinjaToad:From my own personal experience I can tell you girls born to immigrant Chinese or Indians parents are like the most precious snowflake of snowflakes.

heheheheehethat is so cute that you use anecdotal evidence to support that you are right and the other people are racist.LOLOLOLOL

from my own infinitely wiser evidence, I saw exactly the opposite.Asian family had a girl, fine fine, but oh boy, once their SON came along, the daughter became second fiddle and was virtually ignored.

Tanishh:R.A.Danny: Amos Quito: What part of CHOICE did you not understand?

Yep. You either believe that choice is a right or you do not. Or at least that you should keep your nose out of it.

Implying that it's all black and white and there is no such thing as being in the middle.

Some of us are pro choice, but with restrictions and regulation. You know, kind of like how anyone sane is when it comes to things like guns, voting, driving, and anything else of consequence.

You should be able to obtain an abortion up to a certain point in any pregnancy, with no required waiting period (or, at most, a very small one), covered by insurance, no required ultrasound / other unnecessary steps, etc. But not for any reason under the sun. Not wanting to go ahead with a baby because you lost your job and can't afford it, or it'll be dead on arrival, or it will have a severe defect is ok. Not the choice everyone would make, but it's your choice. Doing the same because you don't like girls is just farked up. Sorry.

I am of the opinion that the choices of women need to be respected and we need to be cognizant of the fact that nobody knows each individual family's situation but each individual family, and one size doesn't fit all. But I am also of the opinion that a fetus, in most cases, WILL eventually become a human, and we should not have people running around getting abortions completely 100% without restriction, rhyme, or reason.

And if you support laws making it such that killing a pregnant woman gives you 2 counts of murder instead of 1, congratulations. You, too, are not 100% on the "fetuses don't matter at all and choice is all that matters" side either.

Forcing somebody to have a child that they don't want (for ANY reason) is what's farked up. You'd rather that child go through a lifetime of pain and misery simply because you don't personally like their reasons for wanting to abort.

When actually, their reasons are none of your business. Stop trying to insert yourself in other people's relationships.

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America,

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of America's aborted babies are black. Half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Is this an intentional genocide? (Emphasis added)

"The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," according to Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr. Blacks are the only minority in America experiencing a declining population.

sleeps in trees:R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? You can tell the sex of the child quite often. Geographic location has nothing to do with it.

Yes thanks I have, many times. Parents are not allowed to see certain photos nor the actual ultra sound. One cannnot make accurate assessments from the ones given through the ultra sound. I said nothing about geographic location, but universal health care.

This is incorrect. I just went with my wife for her 20 week, and it's a boy - I watched the entire ultrasound with her, she pointed out the twig and berries, made sure to get a few times around there to ensure it was a boy. If the little lump wasn't cooperating and hid the goods, we would have to pay for a separate ultrasound if we wanted to find out the sex, unless there was a valid medical reason to have another ultrasound. So if all things good, two ultrasounds are paid for by our universal health care, and they try to show you the sex, and you get to see the whole thing. Your information is incorrect. Also, we could ask for specific pictures while going through, if we wanted. Three of my siblings have had kids in the last four years, and this appears to be the norm.

No one paid attention to my previous drunken rambling, which makes me sad. So, I'll up the drunken rambling.

The things on the base of Maslow's hierarchy? They cost nothing. Well, next to nothing. The most expensive thing, really, is food and water. Shelter, clothing? These things are actually really, really farking cheap, or could be.

Those tennis shoes that cost $125? They are worth about $3, and the department store shreds hundreds of them to keep them expensive.

My wife just got a sales job at a trade factory (in China, ofc) that makes jewerly for several famous labels. They sell these baubles for thousands of USD. In reality, they cost about 50 RMB to make. Eight bucks US. For a necklace that sells for several THOUSAND dollars US.

That's less than the cost of pork here in China.

Wearing a slab of pork meat around your neck is a better show of wealth than a Dio----- I mean Swarov--- Ah, whatever the fark brand name necklace.

We live in a time where everything OTHER than food and water is extranious. Prices are rediculously inflated for clothing and shelter. Only fairly inflated for food and water.

Imagine a world where everyone only paid "wholesale" cost for food, water, shelter, and clothing. Everyone on the planet could afford to live better than all the generations that came before.

WordyGrrl:doglover: BarkingUnicorn: Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.

The Mormons actually have to kick young men out of the church to make sure they have enough brides to go around for the senior members. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.jp/2012/09/where-do-extra-men-go.htm l

That's what I think one of the big things in the Muslim countries with all the extreme terrorists is. They also allow polygamy. So the richest, most powerful old goats snap up all the women and the poor young men are left with no money, no power, and no pussy. When was the last time a George Clooney type playboy went all suicide bomber? If you guessed never, step up and collect your prize.

So a dearth of unwed young men will always lead to trouble. That's my hypothesis and thus objection.

In China, where the "one child" policy has lead to an overstock of males vs females, women are realizing they've got a LOT of power when it comes to who they choose to marry -- and they're looking to make bank. As part of the "bride price," they're demanding -- and getting -- new cars, apartments/houses for their parents, you name it. Keeping that daughter as the "one child" is turning out to be a very good investment for parents, so I'm guessing the market will correct itself.

R.A.Danny:As I said before, you either get choice or you do not. Some half baked, cockamie scheme that judges whether you get a right by your reason to use that right is just plain silly.

No, it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Motive is important in determining whether lots of things are permitted. There is nothing half-baked about saying "You have the right to a termination if you do not wish to have a child but you do not have the right to a termination if you do not wish this particular child".

orbister:R.A.Danny: As I said before, you either get choice or you do not. Some half baked, cockamie scheme that judges whether you get a right by your reason to use that right is just plain silly.

No, it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Motive is important in determining whether lots of things are permitted. There is nothing half-baked about saying "You have the right to a termination if you do not wish to have a child but you do not have the right to a termination if you do not wish this particular child".

bbfreak:Shady or not it isn't your choice because it isn't your body. You may disagree but who is harmed in the resulting decision? Certainly not a person. Ultimately it's up to the woman, husband or not to make her own decisions no matter how influenced she is by her husband. If anything I would be fine with abortion clinics making sure the woman doesn't feel pressured but firmly believe it is nobody's business why a woman wants an abortion as long as she isn't pressured into such a thing.

Would you be OK with abortion at 39 weeks or after the contractions have started? If not, why not?

orbister:R.A.Danny: As I said before, you either get choice or you do not. Some half baked, cockamie scheme that judges whether you get a right by your reason to use that right is just plain silly.

No, it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Motive is important in determining whether lots of things are permitted. There is nothing half-baked about saying "You have the right to a termination if you do not wish to have a child but you do not have the right to a termination if you do not wish this particular child".

Motive only matters to the potential parents-to-be. NOBODY else in this situation is affected by their decision.

sleeps in trees:f my siblings have had kids in the last four years, and this appears to be the norm.

I was not allowed and neither was my girlfriend so we've had 3 for 3. She was subsequently told

From other comments, it appears to be a BC thing and not anywhere in the law there, and shouldn't be an issue finding a provider that did not withhold that information - I'm in Ontario, and there's no issues with the technician telling you the sex so far as the last 4 nieces and nephews are concerned. But if they cannot see it on your 20ish week ultrasound, than you will be paying to find out if there's no reason for another ultrasound.

sendtodave:orbister: No, it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Motive is important in determining whether lots of things are permitted. There is nothing half-baked about saying "You have the right to a termination if you do not wish to have a child but you do not have the right to a termination if you do not wish this particular child".

Seems like a distinction without a difference.

I don't think so. The long version says "Society as a whole doesn't much like abortion, because it values human life at all stages, but recognises that some people simply do not wish to be parents and in those cases it permits abortion at early stages of pregnancy. However, society insists that the disinclination should be to having any child, as it finds the idea of terminating a pregnancy to avoid having a particular child with particular characteristics unacceptable".

I'm not saying that this is the only point of view, but I do think it is a valid point of view. In between the small number of people who think abortion is wonderful and should be available at any point before birth and the people who think abortion is terrible and should not be permitted under any circumstances are the large majority who don't like it much but are prepared to countenance it under certain circumstances. Those circumstances can be as narrow as "in cases of incest only" or as wide as "up to 24 weeks on demand".

It's the placing of the legal boundary that causes most heart searching and debate. Downs? Deaf? Harelip?

Monkeyfark Ridiculous:Impressive. It takes some badly twisted ethics to allow a medical professional to deny a patient access to information gathered from her own body, let alone to mandate the denial.

Like the law in Arizona* that allows a physician to lie to a patient about serious birth defects if they *merely think* the patient may abort if they knew the truth?

If these douchebags are callous enough to abort based on gender, I hope they are infertile on the next go-round. They don't deserve a kid, or more to the point, a kid does not deserve these parents. I want to believe that people still retain some humanity, but I'm beginning to doubt it.